TMI Blog

2019 (8) TMI 718

..... ne on company & directors - HELD THAT:- There is substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Company and the Directors have not been treated equally. Impugned order maintained with regard to imposing of fine under Section 148(8) for FY 2014 - 2015 and 2015 - 2016 and substitute “40,000” in place of “2,00,000” with regard to the Directors .....

..... nder Section 233B(11) of the Companies Act, 1956 (old Act - in short) before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court for Economic Offences, Jaipur for the financial year 2013 - 2014. The Company moved application for compounding and the matter was then filed with NCLT. Permission from prosecuting Court under Section 441(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 (new Act - in short) was also obtained. 3. NCLT consid .....

..... 2,10,000 4. Ajay Kumar Goyal 10,000 2,00,000 2,10,000 5. Trilok Chand Goyal 10,000 2,00,000 2,10,000 4. We have perused the Appeal and Reply filed by ROC and heard Counsel for both sides. 5. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the NCLT imposed maximum fine of ₹ 1 Lakh as prescribed under Section 148(8) read with Section 147(1) on each of the Directors for each of the .....

..... vened, the company shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees and every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. Conside .....